Got Status? Indian Status in Canada, sort of explained.

It has been my experience that many Canadians do not understand the difference between Status and membership, or why so many different terms are used to refer to native peoples. The confusion is understandable; this is a complex issue and the terms used in any given context can vary greatly. Many people agree that the term ‘Indian’ is a somewhat outdated and inappropriate descriptor and have adopted the presently more common ‘First Nations’. It can seem strange then when the term ‘Indian’ continues to be used, in particular by the government, or in media publications. The fact that ‘Indian’ is a legislative term is not often explained.

As a Métis, I find myself often answering questions about whether or not I have Status, which invariably turns into an explanation about what Status means in the Canadian context. The nice thing is, as time passes, fewer people ask me this because it does seem that the information is slowly getting out there into the Canadian consciousness.

To help that process along, I figured I’d give you the quick and dirty explanation of the different categories out there. Well…quick is subjective, I am after all notoriously long-winded.

Terms discussed:

native

indigenous

Aboriginal

Status Indian

non-Status Indian

Métis

Inuit

First Nations

Bill C-31 Indians

Bill C-3 Indians

Band membership

Treaty Indians

Context first

Obviously I want to focus specifically on the Canadian context. Since I’m trying to clarify the terms used, for this post I’m going to avoid using them interchangeably even though I tend to do this elsewhere.

When speaking generally, I will use the term native because it tends not to have any legal meaning and it’s just a term I’m used to using. When referring to specific legal definitions, I will use the legislated terms.

This discussion focuses mainly on Status, and does not delve into definitions of Inuit or Métis, nor is there much explanation about what being non-Status means. Those are also huge issues that require separate posts.

Status versus Membership

Status is a legal definition, used to refer to native peoples who are under federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction over, “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” was set up in our first Constitution, the Constitution Act, 1867, in section 91(24). This division of powers is not a little detail, so I’d like you to keep it mind always in these discussions.

The particular piece of federal legislation that defines Status is the Indian Act, which was created in 1876 and has been updated many times since then. Status then can be held onlyby those native peoples who fit the definition laid out in the Indian Act.

Membership is a much more complex issue. It can refer to a set of rules (traditional or not) created by a native community, that define who is a member of that community. It can also refer to those who are considered members of certain regional or national native organisations. It can be used in a much less formal and subjective sense, such as being part of an urban or rural native group.

Obviously these definitions will overlap at times. The most important thing to note is that having membership is not the same as having status. For example, I am a member of the Alberta Métis Nation. I am not a Status Indian.

Who is Aboriginal?

The term Aboriginal came into legal existence in 1982 when it was defined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35(2) defines Aboriginals as including “the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada”. It is a general, catch all term that has gained legal status in Canada, and therefore is particular to the Canadian context.

The term ‘indigenous’ is another such catch all descriptor, but does not have the samenational legal connotations. It is widely used internationally, however. I am linking now to theUN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to give you a sense of how it is used.

The Constitution Act, 1982 does not define ‘Indian’, ‘Inuit’ or ‘Métis’. The definitions have been fleshed out in legislation, in court decisions, and in policy manuals and have changed significantly over the years. Thus you will see these terms used in different ways depending on how old your sources is, or what period of time is being discussed and so on. Confused? Oh don’t worry, you’re not alone!

Being Aboriginal does not mean one has legal Status; Status is held only by Indians as defined in the Indian Act.

Status

Status Indians are persons who, under the Indian Act are registered or are entitled to be registered as Indians. All registered Indians have their names on the Indian roll, which is administered by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). (I still call this Ministry INAC (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) or DIAND (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) which are both names I grew up hearing.)

Status Indians are able to access certain programs and services which are not available to other Aboriginal peoples.

Does this seem like a vague definition? It isn’t. It is incredibly detailed and confusing. The definitions have changed many times over the years. If you want to read more on this issue,this page gives a great overview of pre and post 1867 definitions as well as explaining some of the more shocking aspects of the Indian Act over time.

Bill C-31 and Status

There were various federal policies over the years that caused Status Indians to be removed from the Indian roll. Some lost Status when they earned a university degree, joined the Army or the priesthood, gained fee simple title of land, or married a non-Indian (this last one applied only to women). One minute you were legally an Indian, and the next…you weren’t.

Bill C-31 was passed in 1985 as an amendment to the Indian Act, and was intended to reinstate Status for those who had lost it. In particular the Bill was supposed to reverse sexual discrimination that had cause Indian women who married non-Indians to lose their Status while men who married non-Indian woman not only kept their Status, but also passed Status on to their non-Indian wives.

Bill C-31 added new categories to the Indian Act, defining who is a Status Indian, and who will be a Status Indian in the future. The legislation does not specifically refer to any sort of blood quantum, therefore there is no official policy that would take into account half or quarter Indian ancestry. Nonetheless, ancestry continues to be a determining factor in who is a Status Indian.

Section 6 of the Indian Act identifies two categories of Status Indians, called 6(1) and 6(2) Indians. Both categories provide full Status; there is no such thing as half Status. The categories determine whether the children of a Status Indian will have Status or not.

This might be a good time to get a coffee, because this next bit is always confusing for people.

A 6(1) Indian who marries a 6(1) or a 6(2) Indian will have 6(1) children. Everyone in this ‘equation’ is a full Status Indian themselves.

If two 6(2) Indians marry, they will have children with 6(1) Status.

A 6(1) Indian who marries anyone without Status (whether that person is Aboriginal or not) will have children who have 6(2) Status. A 6(2) Indian who marries anyone without Status (whether that person is Aboriginal or not) will have children with no legal Indian Status.

Look at this chart again. Two generations of ‘out-marriage’. That is all it takes to completely lose Status. It does not matter if you raise your grandchildren in your native culture. It does not matter if they speak your language and know your customs. If you married someone without Status, and your grandchildren have a non-Status parent, your grandchildren are not considered Indian any longer. Not legally.

To be honest, it is amazing there are any Status Indians left in this country.

Bill C-31, way to not fix sexism!

One of the most criticised aspects of Bill C-31 was that it did not actually reverse the sexism inherent in denying women Status if they married a non-Status man.

Women who had their Indian Status reinstated under Bill C-31 had 6(1) Status, but theirchildren had 6(2) Status. That makes sense according to the charts above, right?

The problem is that men who married non-Indian women actually passed on Indian Status to their previously non-Status wives. Thus the children of those unions have 6(1) status.

Sharon McIvor, and Bill C-3: Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

Sharon McIvor launched an epic court battle to address the problems with Bill C-31 and theIndian Act. In response a Bill was introduced to Parliament for First Reading in March of 2010. The full title of this Bill is:

An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs)

Bill C-3 was given Royal Assent on December 15, 2010 and came into force (became law) on January 31, 2011. A great many grandchildren of women who regained Status under Bill C-31 (but who passed on only 6(2) Status to their children) can now regain their 6(2) Status if they choose to.

In an unsurprising twist, this means my mother and her siblings are eligible for 6(2) Status. Many people are being faced with the same situation, and it is not an easy choice to make. Identity politics are incredibly convoluted and mined with danger. For others who have ‘lived’ Indian their whole lives, Status be damned, it can be an important change…but ultimately one that reinforces the so-called legitimacy of a colonial power deciding who is Indian and who is not.

By the way, ‘Bill C-3 Indians’ isn’t very catchy…I wonder if we’re going to start calling them ‘McIvor Indians’? (Say it out loud )

Band Membership

There are a number of sub-categories that apply to Status Indians. One category is Band membership.

A Band is defined as a group of Indians for whom land has been set aside (a Reserve), or who have been declared a Band by the Governor General (no Reserve). A Band might have a number of reserves, but can also have no land reserved at all. Think of a Band as the people themselves.

Before Bill C-31, having Indian Status automatically gave you Band membership. Bill C-31 gave Bands the ability to stay under the Indian Act Band membership rules (automatic membership with Status) or make their own rules regarding membership.

Thus you can have Status Indians who have no Band membership, just as you can have non-Status Indians who do have Band membership. Being a Status Indian is no longer a guarantee that you will be a member of a Band.

Bill C-3 Indians face the same problems as Bill C-31 Indians did. Having Status does not necessarily mean they will be able to live on reserve or get Band Membership. The pros and cons of this are hotly debated, so I’m going to back away slowly and not touch that, except to point out that there were and are no plans to make federal funding responsive to the influx of those with newly acquired Status under either Bill.

Reserves

Related to Band membership, another sub-category is between reserve and non-reserve Indians. This does not refer to whether one actually lives on the reserve or not, but rather describes whether an Indian is affiliated with a reserve. These are people who have accessto a reserve and the right to live there if they choose.

Even though no historical Treaties were signed in British Columbia, there are many reserves, while in the Northwest Territories which is covered by a numbered Treaty, there are no reserves. I also pointed out above that you can have membership in a Band that doesn’t have a reserve at all.

As in other situations, being a Status Indian does not guarantee you access to a reserve, and there are non-Status people who live on reserve as well.

Treaty Indians

Another sub-category you should know about has to do with whether or not someone is a Treaty Indian.

Treaties in this context refer to formal agreements between legal Indians or their ancestors and the Federal government, usually involving land surrenders. The so called ‘numbered Treaties’ were signed between 1875 and 1921 and cover most of western and northern Canada. British Columbia, with the exception of Vancouver Island is not covered by any historical Treaty.

Other Treaties were signed in eastern Canada, but there are vast areas in the east that are still not covered by any Treaty. A number of modern (since 1976) Treaties have been signed in BC, and in other areas of the country, and negotiations are still underway to create more Treaties. Some Treaties provided for reserves and others did not.

There are many non-Status Indians, particularly in eastern Canada, who consider themselves Treaty Indians. In the Prairies, “Treaty Indian” is often used interchangeably with “Status Indian” although one is not always the same as the other.

Confused yet?

To sum up, Status is held only by Indians who are defined as such under the Indian Act. Inuit and Métis do not have Status, nor do non-Status Indians. There are many categories of Status Indians, but these are legal terms only, and tell us what specific rights a native person has under the legislation.

If a native person is not a Status Indian, this does not mean that he or she is not legally Aboriginal. More importantly, not having Status does not mean someone is not native. Native peoples will continue to exist and flourish whether or not we are recognised legally and you can bet on the fact that terms and definitions will continue to evolve.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

William E. SCOTT was born 1817 in Tennessee. He married Sopha CURTEN in 1840 in Tennessee. William died in 1882. He had a farm.

What is backstory? Backstory is that magical ingredient which transforms your vanilla-flavored family history narrative into Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Peppermint Crunch. The foregoing account illustrates some family history narratives which read in a rather dry manner (some may argue). Please don’t misunderstand. Putting your family history story on paper places you at the head of the pack. Many genealogists don’t get that far! So congratulations for creating a legacy for your descendants by putting your story down on paper, clues from which to interpret the family history.

If you haven’t already done so, however, why not make that family history narrative sparkle? Backstory is the key. Some call it social context or historical context. Historical inference is a means of creating backstory. Historical inferencemeans to call upon historical knowledge of people, cultures, events, trends, causes, and effects to interpret the people or action at hand (1).

How would the foregoing account look transformed by historical inference?

William E. SCOTT (1817 – 1881) and his bride Sopha CURTEN SCOTT (1824 – 1894) farmed the fertile land of Knox County, Tennessee in 1850 with their four young children: Nancy C., 7, Melvina J., 5, Mary E., 3, and Ann E., age 1. With its abundant springs, the couple likely grew Indian corn or oats, and raised cattle or pigs surrounded by the majestic Cumberland Mountains and the main Alleghany chain (2) (3).

Using contemporary sources from Google Books and Ancestry, the SCOTT family saga comes to life. Backstory also makes the story more readable for your descendants, helps resolve or create new research questions, and tests existing assumptions. Why not try your hand at backstory? You will slowly and dramatically see your ancestor come to life.

Join the conversation about backstory below by leaving a comment, email me at AskGenWorks@gmail.com, or join the herd over at Facebook.

(2) 1850 U.S. Census. Tennessee, Knox County, Subdivision 15, dwelling number 1945, family number 1954, 13 December 1850, Roll: M432-886; Page: 230B; Image 462. Head of household: William SCOTT. Retrieved from Ancestry.com.

(3) Baldwin, T. and J. Thomas. (1854). Knox, a county in the central part of E. Tennessee. A new and complete gazetteer of the United States, 571. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott, Grambo & Co. Retrieved from Google Books.

Proof Arguments

12 August 2014

Proof is not a document. It’s a body of evidence. As biographers or historians of whatever ilk, we do not ‘prove’ a point by discovering a record that asserts something. That assertion could be wrong. If so, any further work we do on the basis of that misinformation will likely be wrong or irrelevant.

Not even a stack of documents or a list of sources can constitute proof, unless we explain their significance individually and collectively. The piece of writing in which we do this is called a proof argument.

A convincing proof argument will present the evidence from each document. It will frankly discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of each source and the information it provides. It will discuss the contradictions we found and how we resolved them. It will explain how and why, for the issue we are trying to prove, the whole body of evidence points to only one reasonable conclusion.

Achieving proof is a process in which we assemble evidence, test it, refine it, and reinforce it until that body of evidence is solid enough to withstand contradictions and counterclaims. As with any construction project, results are only as good as the materials and the labor we invest.

Need a model to see just how this works? EE's QuickLessons, accessible under the "Home" tab or in the "QuickLesson Archive," provide several of them using a variety of thorny problems

Monday, August 11, 2014

North Bay's Big Movie - Captains of the Clouds 1941

On this 100th Anniversary of flight the use of planes in WWII should be remembered. The use of planes prevented the excessive death of WWI. One of the keys to the success of the allied air force was a remarkable training plan based in Canada that trained 130,000 pilots, navigators, gunners, engineers, etc. to man these planes. Called the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP) it had 107 training schools across the country. Trainees came from Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. The plan weeded out unsuitable candidates and some were injured or killed.

I recall as a school child in Port Colborne the many training planes that flew overhead from the nearby BCATP centres at Jarvis, Hagersville and Dunville. I have a photo from the Globe and Mail from February 1941 showing several WWI pilots who had volunteered to enlist to train students in the BCATP. One of the pilots in the photo was an uncle who made a major contribution.

To gain the cooperation of the local people and to encourage men from the Commonwealth, the United States and elsewhere to join, a public relations man was appointed. One of his ideas was to get a big Hollywood movie made that would publicize the program. This led to one of the most exciting summers in North Bay history as Hollywood descended on Trout Lake and environs in 1941. The crew of eighty included Academy Award winning director Michael Curtiz and Hollywood's highest paid actor James Cagney who was making his first colour movie.

James Cagney's Norseman in the moving Captains of the Clouds. Warners V/A Museum of Modern Art.

Rudy Mauro, the North Bay resident mentioned last week has researched the event in minute detail for the prestigious Canadian Aviation Historical Society. His articles appeared in their Journal and won the Association's research award in 1991.

Some excellent photos, a large poster and samples of some of his writing are featured in the current exhibition in the Alex Dufresne Gallery at the Callander Bay Heritage Museum. A copy of the 3 articles he wrote for the Aviation Journal is available in the research section of the North Bay Public Library.

A couple of later books have been written about the film and much of the material is based on Rudy's research which came from RCAF files and station resources held by the National Archives of Canada and National Defense Department directorate of History, Warner Brothers, various aviation museums and many interviews including key people in North Bay.

The film was called Captains of the Clouds after a phrase used by Air Marshall "Billy" Bishop, the WWI air ace who played a role in the film. The female lead was Brenda Marshall who had recently married Hollywood star William Holden. Various character actors including Dennis Morgan and Alan Hale played roles as Canadian bush pilots and many local people were directly or indirectly involved.

The movie is the story of three Northern Ontario bush pilots who were one-upped by James Cagney who is not only aggressive and cocky but very fast with the female lead who lives at an outpost with her father and is engaged to one of the other pilots. Cagney eventually joins the other pilots in a joint work venture and when war pilots are needed they decide to join the RCAF and the BCATP.

Space does not allow for details here but in simple terms they have a hard time especially Cagney who however becomes a hero at the end. Much of the early part of the film was shot on four Mile Bay on Trout Lake and at Woodcliffe Camp and Croskery's on the south shore and possibly at other locations on the lake.

Many of the flying scenes were shot at Jumping Caribou Lake north of North Bay.

Much of the crew stayed at the Empire Hotel and at Len Hughes Camp Champlain during their stay here. The big stars spent very little time here but some of the crew remained for several weeks shooting the bush plane scenes. Cagney hated flying and did not fly as was the case with the other actor pilots. Hollywood stunt flyers were brought in. The close-ups of the cabins of the planes were shot later in Hollywood in mock up cockpits.

Of local interest is the fact that well known North Bay businessman Harry Mulligan, who had some Hollywood connections was instrumental in bringing the movie to North Bay. He loaned his carrier pigeons to the director to send messages to North Bay for transmission to Hollywood and elsewhere. Trout Lake was just in the early stages of its development and there were no phones and the roads were very rough.

Yvette Gravelle Boyce who lives on Nipissing's south shore and her sister Jeanette worked as cooks at Len Hughes Camp Champlain in 1941 and fed the staff and crew of the film on several occasions. Cagney and others had cabins there for convenience. The sisters and a brother were asked to be a part of a scene where people were needed in the background and their brother caught a rope thrown from a docking plane in one scene. Stand ins were often used until a scene was actually shot and before the stars stepped in and sometimes a double that looked like the star was used where a close up was not required. Mildred "Middy" Morland, daughter of the owner of North Bay's Morland real estate company was chosen to be a double for Brenda Marshall. In one scene she stands on a wagonload of hay while Cagney's bush plane buzzes the wagon. (see photo).

The scene was shot several times and the star was nowhere in sight until she comes down off the wagon and is seen in a close up. Mildred married Jack Gorman, a young reporter at the Nugget who covered the shooting of the film. They live in North Bay. She recalls the good pay and the trips to work in a Deluxe taxi.

James Cagney and Denis Morgan visit with Doctor Dafoe the Quint Doctor in Callander in 1941, during the shooting of the film. DND/RCAF Photo

Many other people had connections with the movie or were part of the crowds that gathered at the Empire Hotel or at shooting sites. Some remember James Cagney and Dennis Morgan's visit to the Quint doctor Dr. Dafoe at his office where the current show is currently located some 60 years later. A quality video of Captains of the Clouds was released in 1993 and is available through Blockbuster or the internet and there are 2 copies in North Bay Public Library. The Museum also has a copy, which may be shown by appointment. It should be mentioned that the second half of the movie showing the BCATP was shot in Ottawa at Uplands Air Base and the Chateau Laurier and at other BCATP bases.

The film did well at the box office becoming Cagney's second highest grossing film after Yankee Doodle Dandy, which he shot the same year and for which he received the Best Actor Academy Award for 1942.

The boat looks like a ferry, not technically a flatboat. The ferry may be flat on deck and even flat on the bottom, but those facts do not put it in the class of boats traditionally reserved for the flat-bottomed boats used by both the settlers and by the merchants of 200 years ago.

The settlers built boats same as we hire a truck to move our furniture. At the end of the voyage down the Ohio River (usually), the boat might be used for shelter until the first house is built. Then the lumber from the boat is re-used.

Merchants built flatboats with a bigger cabin for protection of their cargo, usually barrels of whiskey bound for New Orleans.

These flatboats were attempted to be controlled by means of sweeps either on the sides or on the ends. After several attempts to do so on our voyage aboard the flatboat "Spirit of Kanawha" in 1988, I concluded that control may be more efficient by dragging a kedge or a rock, and moving its line along the gunwales.

A ferry could be controlled in a like fashion, resulting in great loss of distance. Consequently, the ferry crew must use the more tiring method of poling. A very few ferries were powered by a team of horses on board.

FlatboatCrew@yahoogroups.com for The Flatboat Project's weekly newsletter Flatboat Daze and discussions with other subscribers. Subscriptions are $52 per year for 52 newsletters and no charge for discussions. Send a check or money order for $52 made out to Bela Berty and send it to the Post Office box above. Thank you dearly!